Ethics and Virtual Reality

The following essay is the result of a question asked once on
chat. It deals with ethics and player
behavior both within and without the game framework on Legend. It
is posted here as a complement
to the logs presented on the "Future of the Mud."

The question as phrased is: "What morality exists in the context
of a game? Do we treat a game as a
subset of ethics or should virtuality reflect our ethics in
reality?"

Expansion of the question: "Ethics within a game, do you consider
this 'a game', do you feel the lack
of ethical standards implies that it can never be MORE than a
game?"

To begin, I must redefine the question. As stated, the question
provides only one option. By definition,
a subset is a collection of items which is a part, although not
necessarily a complete part, of a larger
collection of items. For example, from the set

Carefully thinking about the ethics of multi-player gaming.

Alphabet {A, B, C, -//-, Z}

FirstFiveLetters cA, B, C, D, E! is a subset, but
NumbersAndLetters c1, A! is not. Also, a reflection
is not necessarily a complete duplicate. An image in a mirror has
no depth, only the image of depth.
Therefore, the first question, as stated, is really asking:
Should game ethics be a limited collection of
our r/l ethics or a limited collection of r/l ethics?

I will answer the question redefined as: "Should the moral values
and ethics which we consider to be
valid in real life be applied to the game, or should we look at
the game as existing with a separate set
of ethics, possibly, but unlikely, completely separate? What type
of ethics should apply?"

The expansion of the question will be answered as it stands.

In "Finite and Infinite Games", by a modern philosopher who's
name eludes meat the moment, a point
is made that there are two types of games. The finite game has a
rigid set of rules and a limited
duration. The rules do not vary, the game does not extend beyond
set boundaries, the players are
limited, and affect the play of the game, but not how the game is
played.

The infinite game, however, has flexible rules. The game can
last, literally, forever. The boundaries are
part of the game, not limits of the game. Any number of players
participate, and they play *with the
rules* rather than within the rules. They define how the game is
played by how they play it. And, the
game continues, players coming and going, without stopping.

A virtual game is more an infinite game than a finite game. The
players can be defined as mortal and
immortal, but are not limited to their roles. In fact, the
virtual game is most accurately described as an
infinite game which contains many finite games. (In fact, I
believe this is part of the definition, but I've
lost my text.)

By its very definition, life itself can be included in the realm
of infinite games. Life continues after
players who have taken it oh, so seriously, perish and are
forgotten. Life is the ultimate game.

So, to look at the ethics of the game, one must consider how one
values the playing of the game.
There are those who live to play the game, be it life, or be it
virtual, by playing with the boundaries, by
appreciating the sheer joy of the game, playing to benefit the
game, as well as themselves. They will
typically dislike anything which decreases the pleasure of the
game. There are those who enjoy the
game, but do not see the potential of adopting the philosophy of
the infinite player. They are players,
for sure, but see a set of rules and exist by them, oblivious to
the idea that they themselves decided
which rules they would live by, or that their rules can be
changed if they so desire. There are those
who exist in the game, but are unsure of the rules, and are
unable to adopt a solid structure. Sadly,
these more timid of souls have the potential of the infinite
player, as they also hold no bounds, but
these meeker players seek to adopt a set of rules by which to
exist within. They seek their own cage.
While the finite player has adopted a set of rules for
themselves, the meek player can not even
accomplish this, being unable to choose. The last general
classification would be that of one who
closely parallels the infinite player, as he has realized that
the rules are alterable, and that the
boundaries can be decided upon, rather than lived by, but who
seeks no pleasure from the true game.
This type is the user. The user alters the rules, creates his own
set of standards, simply to benefit
themselves.

The different types of players will seek different definitions of
morality. The infinite player will desire
only what enhances the play of the game. The finite player will
desire what reflects his personal
standard of rules. The timid player will seek a firm set of
guidelines, and will conform, generally
without question. Finally, the user will seek no set of morals,
wishing to fulfill his desires without
reproach and regardless of effect on the game or the players.

Having given this set of personal beliefs, I will point out the
rather obvious and state that I believe
myself to be an infinite player. I believe that the game should
be played for more than the sake of
oneself. Not that one should sacrifice oneself, but that one
should seek to benefit themselves while
benefiting others. This is not an idealistic philosophy. The fact
that it succeeds is in the images of the
most successful of persons. Bill Gates has benefited others by
creating a uniform architecture which is
open for others to build on. In doing so, he has benefited
himself.

Thus, when I consider the question at hand, I believe that some
of our values *must* be carried into
the virtual game. A current case which I have pondered at some
length is that of players who seek to
kill others, without cause. I do not, for one instant, propose
that player killing be made impossible,
and I heartily agree with the general idea of clanning. But if
player killing is going to be included as
part of clans, than those players who are clanned should be
expected to uphold and be measured
against a strong set of standards. While I understand that the
war of Kiera and the Order of the Scroll
had solid foundations, and find that war to be an appropriate
characterization, I believe that Augustus
declaration of death to all clanned persons within his range of
levels, regardless of cause, is akin to
that of a serial killer, who deserves to be hunted and destroyed,
if unwilling to accept a more plausible
set of character guidelines. As a point, one should note that if
Augustus behavior is akin to that of,
say, the Unabomber, or alleged Timothy McVeigh, one should also
note that most if not all groups
which hold similar beliefs to either of the aforementioned
individuals have decried the methods which
have been used to reinforce their views. In shorter terms,
Terrorism is not to be acknowledged as
anything but vile filth to be destroyed.

I guess, one could consider my views in game ethics to be very
similar to the ethics of r/l. I refer not to
politics, or law of the land (whatever land you are in), but to
the simple philosophy that people in
general will work for a common benefit and will work to eliminate
that which threatens them.

As to the role of the immortals and the players in this set of
ethics. I believe that most situations should
be left to the mortal players to resolve. Immortals should become
involved only if a player shows
extreme disruptive signs or has gained some unfair advantage,
such as being able to run a quest more
than once which is normally only allowed one time. Extreme
disruption includes repeated tells and
chats full of drivel, but *also* includes creating a real threat
to other players without cause. Player
killing, simply for the sake of player killing, and not for some
cause, such as honor offended or a
crime, or a declared clan war, to me borders on the extreme
danger.

Finally, as to the application of ethics between reality and
virtualism, I believe that when one plays in a
virtual world, one should abide by the rules of that world. One
may differ in opinion with the
implementors, but one is also a guest in a world created by the
implementor, and should defer to
those decisions of the implementor. The implementor who is
unreasonable will not have a popular
world, and will abandon the project. The same goes for the
implementor who is extreme. The
implementor must be flexible and willing to listen to players,
but the success of the game is measured,
ultimately, not by the number of professional players who play,
but, to my way of thinking, by the
number of new players who find an encouraging environment to
develop their skills in as characters
and players.

If those rules are violated, perhaps by creating multiple links
and running several characters together,
or by improperly gaining access to the system and editing files,
or by immortals assisting mortals
(except when the mortal suffers link loss, loss of items by
error, etc.), than the penalty should be swift
and severe. The player who does not respect the concept of the
game should not be accepted.

Now, to the final issue, which is whether the lack of ethical
standards implies that the game can never
be more than a game. First and foremost, it is impossible for a
set of ethical standards to not exist
when humans are involved. The implementors have standards, even
if the standard is simply not to
intervene. Also, the collective group of players will accept or
reject certain activity as desirable. It is in
human nature to choose its company selectively, and to believe
that it is possible to exist without
standards is simply foolhardy. It is comparable to anarchists who
believe that we can live without a
form of government. Perhaps without our government we can exist,
but some power will always rise
to control. We are humans, and we seek to dominate our
environment, and we have beliefs as to how
such environments should be run.

Can the virtual world become more than a game? Certainly.
Regardless of ethics. It already is, as the
virtual world is not limited to the world of Muds. But a more
specific point is, when the activity of a
virtual world affects the life of the person involved, it has
become part of reality. Take the persons
who have met in the nets and married in r/l subsequently. One can
not believe that the virtual world is
simply a game, when results like that can occur. Were it merely a
game, or specifically, merely a finite
game, there would be no interaction between players greater than
the interaction of the players on
opposite ends of a virtual chess board. We play in an infinite
game, where human interaction
eliminates the boundaries, and readjusts them. The infinite game
is more than a game. There is only
one infinite game, of which all other infinite games are an
extension. The game is life, and we are all
players in it.

Chuck Haeberle wrote this article for Legend mud
where he is known as
Traveling Jack, or Greebo.